I sure don't have any trouble believing you purposefully ignored the massive crawling and aliasing in this screenshot, visible even when automatically resized by the forum.
*split* multiplatform console-world problems + Image Quality Debate
- Thread starter DrJay24
- Start date
I sure don't have any trouble believing you purposefully ignored the massive crawling and aliasing in this screenshot, visible even when automatically resized by the forum.
I found this part of the article to be quite interesting:
Talking to the Microsoft tech staff, we attempted to tackle the issue of the 32MB ESRAM limit by suggesting a 1080p render target scenario that wasn't that outrageous for a modern game engine, but would bust through the memory ceiling very easily. Microsoft countered by suggesting that those targets could be split between DDR3 and ESRAM, and pushed its own, more memory-efficient, compressed render target formats - similar to the ones utilised on Xbox 360 to great success.
In the light of recent events, the question is, will those formats actually be utilised if they can't be easily supported on PC or PlayStation 4? More pertinently, faced with crushing deadlines for next-gen launch titles, isn't lowering the size of Xbox One render targets the much easier option?
So, will things continue to look grim for Xbox One multi-platform games in the launch period? On the one hand, if studios like DICE and Infinity Ward - where resources are vast - are having problems, the prognosis can't look good in the short term. What hasn't helped Microsoft's cause is that both of the key titles where we have known metrics are pushing 60 frames per second - the bleeding edge of performance on console, which rarely works out kindly where one platform has weaker GPU performance, as many of the current-gen Call of Duty titles demonstrate.
It could very well turn out to be early days and incomplete tools which are the culprit but who knows.... DF seemed to want to point out some areas from their earlier MS articles where they either didn't agree with MS's statements or felt might not have been answered completely by their sources. I'm not saying they are distancing themselves from the earlier stories but it does seem they wanted to point out that what MS said was coming from MS not an endorsement from DF - a point that seems to have been lost by quite a few people.
Regardless its a good reminder to go back and look at the titles which launched on the 360 and PS3 and then look at the games we're seeing this year to get some perspective.
I watched the video which was running in slow motion. Also as I said regarding sharpness setting on TVs....
I can assure you 99.9% of people wouldn't know if the game was running on the same console but connected to different TVs unless they were explicitly told. Also who the hell is going to be doing this side by side comparison anyway? And what the hell for???? *facepalm*
As I said and I'll repeat, if I was told the video footage was running on the same console but connected to different TVs with different sharpness settings I wouldn't have any reason to doubt that.
I think 99.9% of people wouldn't doubt that either. I'm sorry if you have a hard time accepting that notion.
Last edited by a moderator:
RenegadeRocks
Legend
resolution difference will always show,no matter what. It wasn't a coincidence that reviewers found PS4 version looking better in the review event.
BTW, just played some matches of COnquest and the game is freaking awesome ! I can see why reviewers were praising the map design !
and the game already looks great even on the ps3.
BTW, just played some matches of COnquest and the game is freaking awesome ! I can see why reviewers were praising the map design !
and the game already looks great even on the ps3.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless you can prove that with any type of backup you're just making a wild claim and quite frankly nobody can take you seriously. So far first hand reports have been contradictory to what you are claiming.
Besides, I more than noticed the crawling on several of the videos that weren't present on the PS4 version. Therefore I'm one of the 0.1% that noticed. So unless you can find 999 people that can't notice, your 99.9% claim holds no ground.
The point isn't if you can/cannot notice crawling....*facepalm*
The point is if a person was told it was running on the same console but connected to different TVs with different sharpness settings they would most likely believe it. There's really nothing there to convince them that in fact is not the case...
BTW I don't take you seriously either so why bother? I think you're trying way to hard to try and convince people what they should be seeing...
What you notice is irrelevant to 99.9% of people who plan on getting the game.
Let it go man...
Last edited by a moderator:
I just noticed something weird in that comparsion vdeo at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8XqWRACk2zY#t=36
Notice the weird flickering on the ground in the PS4 version when the guy hands you the goggles....
Notice the weird flickering on the ground in the PS4 version when the guy hands you the goggles....
No, you're wrong. What anybody notices is irrelevant. What matters is that nobody can notice the difference, and the details for that matter must support this argument or it is irrelevant/false.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
While what you notice is relevant ...I keed
!BTW, was there ever a better MP game made ? :::: No sire No ! Having so much fun
I'm in the 99.9% so what I don't notice is very relevant...
You're free to disagree but that doesn't really change how the real world actually works...
The reality is most people don't notice or don't actually care....life moves on and so should you...
Last edited by a moderator:
I can assure you no matter what kind of dodgy hardware upscaling, contrasting or sharpening XBone does to this game trying to cover up its resolution deficiency, it'll still look like a jaggy, unnatural colored turd on any 1080p set over 42".
I mean boy oh boy that Xbone's pic in Strange' comparison literally tells me somebody gone to town with sharpening and over contrast which really makes it look uglier than sin. You seriously couldn't tell?
djskribbles
Legend
Fact of the matter is, some people are downplaying the differences to virtually nothing and some people are making them out to be bigger than they really are. The truth lies in-between. Considering that the media that played both games and saw them both in person picked the PS4 as looking visually better says that the differences are visible. Saying 99.9% of people don't care is just pulling numbers out of your ass. I think that a lot of gamers don't care, but I bet there are many that do too. Why do you think these comparisons are so interesting? Yes B3D represents the minority in terms of the gaming population, but every gaming site is interested in these comparisons, not just B3D.
Last edited by a moderator:
Same thing happens on xbone. Looks like a glitchy wind effect or something.
http://youtu.be/8XqWRACk2zY?t=3m8s
RenegadeRocks
Legend
I think everyone cares when a generation changes , after all purchase decisions have to be made. A few years down the line when one has made the purchase choices and settled in withthe consoles, then, yeah, then its ok as long as the game is fun. But initially , of course, everyone has their magnifying glasses out. Ths time the console hardware seemed so close to each other that it matters even more.
It also happens at 3:09 on the XO version, and I believe it re-occurs on the PS4 shortly afterwards in the same scene. It almost looks like a water texture is being rendered onto the rocks
.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
It's a shame that the resolution difference is difficult to appreciate on YouTube, as there are still people claming the Xbox One footage is equal to the PS4. Most of us here can appreciate the difference by simply looking at the numbers, but Joe Gamer will judge from videos alone.
Now I watch YouTube on my phone, which has a 720p resolution, and I'm sure most others are doing much the same. So when I look at the videos, they look essentially the same (pixel crawl aside).
If they were to be compared on two 1080p screens side by side, the difference would be unquestionable.
Now I watch YouTube on my phone, which has a 720p resolution, and I'm sure most others are doing much the same. So when I look at the videos, they look essentially the same (pixel crawl aside).
If they were to be compared on two 1080p screens side by side, the difference would be unquestionable.
You know, I guess all that talk of "super-charged pc architecture" on Sony's side really seems to be just that. While on the other hand MS's talk about "balanced hardware" and whatnot, in the light of recent events, sounds more and more like plain PR after all. I'm not trying to make a fanboy argument here and bash MS (since it seems they're doing a pretty damn good job of doing it themselves ). If anything I'm more of an MS "believer" if you will. However, they got people like Penello posting on that-other-forum that they "won't give up a 30%+ performance difference to Sony", "They invented DirectX", etc. At E3 they had presentations that were all about 1080p/60fps for CoD and BF4. And now? It all just seems really unflattering and outright stupid after what we know now.
In fact, it seems the super-charged PC architecture results in easier porting from PC to PS4, because basically the PS4 is "just" (not in a negative way) a beefed-up PC. You've got a single large pool of high bandwidth RAM that works just as good for high performance graphics applications as it most probably also does for standard OS- and application-stuff. We also have to consider that those anonymous sources that stated that "PS4 ports run at 1080p, 90fps, unoptimized" while "X1 ports run at 900p, 20-30fps" probably were true or not far from reality after all. And coming to think of it, it does actually make a lot of sense. There just isn't as much need to optimize with PS4 because the system's architecture is straight forward and doesn't require special treatment to run good. This wasn't the case in the last generation with 360 and even more so with PS3's Cell and it looks like it still isn't the case with X1. And I think that last part is where the problem lies for MS, at least for now.
It certainly was clear to many, given the X1's leaked documents, that the system will have bottlenecks due to the usage of DDR3 and the specialized ESRAM. I guess it just wasn't as clear how simple and straight-forward the PS4 is compared to that.
However, it's still hard to comprehend how an unspectacular game as CoD Ghosts, isn't able to achieve anything above 720p/60 on X1. The game is based on idTech 3, although highly adapted and enhanced, as far as I know it's no deferred shader engine, so there shouldn't be any problem with fitting the framebuffer into the ESRAM (of course, then the problem is still with getting the texture data into the framebuffer which is probably bound by the DDR3 bandwidth). It's also strange when you compare it to something like Forza 5 which is a forward renderer as well that is however capable of reaching 1080p/60 with certainly good fidelity. Of course the games are quite different but still, there are some similarities and I guess that there just wasn't enough time to optimize for the requirements of the X1.
I think that the devs will learn to cope with X1's architecture over the next year and that should allow for the gap to close to some degree, at least for multiplats, because looking at first party titles the gap isn't that big to begin with. However, there is no denying that apart from closing the gap as good as possible will not suddenly make the X1 a more powerful system, because at some point the pure spec differences will still prevent parity (graphics- and computewise).
The big takeaway from this is probably not that the X1 requires a certain amount of optimization to shine, but probably that the PS4 simply does not.
). If anything I'm more of an MS "believer" if you will. However, they got people like Penello posting on that-other-forum that they "won't give up a 30%+ performance difference to Sony", "They invented DirectX", etc. At E3 they had presentations that were all about 1080p/60fps for CoD and BF4. And now? It all just seems really unflattering and outright stupid after what we know now.In fact, it seems the super-charged PC architecture results in easier porting from PC to PS4, because basically the PS4 is "just" (not in a negative way) a beefed-up PC. You've got a single large pool of high bandwidth RAM that works just as good for high performance graphics applications as it most probably also does for standard OS- and application-stuff. We also have to consider that those anonymous sources that stated that "PS4 ports run at 1080p, 90fps, unoptimized" while "X1 ports run at 900p, 20-30fps" probably were true or not far from reality after all. And coming to think of it, it does actually make a lot of sense. There just isn't as much need to optimize with PS4 because the system's architecture is straight forward and doesn't require special treatment to run good. This wasn't the case in the last generation with 360 and even more so with PS3's Cell and it looks like it still isn't the case with X1. And I think that last part is where the problem lies for MS, at least for now.
It certainly was clear to many, given the X1's leaked documents, that the system will have bottlenecks due to the usage of DDR3 and the specialized ESRAM. I guess it just wasn't as clear how simple and straight-forward the PS4 is compared to that.
However, it's still hard to comprehend how an unspectacular game as CoD Ghosts, isn't able to achieve anything above 720p/60 on X1. The game is based on idTech 3, although highly adapted and enhanced, as far as I know it's no deferred shader engine, so there shouldn't be any problem with fitting the framebuffer into the ESRAM (of course, then the problem is still with getting the texture data into the framebuffer which is probably bound by the DDR3 bandwidth). It's also strange when you compare it to something like Forza 5 which is a forward renderer as well that is however capable of reaching 1080p/60 with certainly good fidelity. Of course the games are quite different but still, there are some similarities and I guess that there just wasn't enough time to optimize for the requirements of the X1.
I think that the devs will learn to cope with X1's architecture over the next year and that should allow for the gap to close to some degree, at least for multiplats, because looking at first party titles the gap isn't that big to begin with. However, there is no denying that apart from closing the gap as good as possible will not suddenly make the X1 a more powerful system, because at some point the pure spec differences will still prevent parity (graphics- and computewise).
The big takeaway from this is probably not that the X1 requires a certain amount of optimization to shine, but probably that the PS4 simply does not.
There's still something hidden under the hood
Take a look at what Johan Andersson tweets
Take a look at what Johan Andersson tweets
https://twitter.com/repi/status/395843472336236545
I wonder if the mods could clear the thread of most technical talk and the talk about perceptions and open a more generic thread in the main section.
The whole point imho is the one RenegadeRocks raised, it is a new generation, both Sony and MSFT made it so that their users are not bound to their environment as there is no BC (~). Recreating a friend list is not such a herculean task.
Arguments such as "buy the system your friends get" is not as relevant at launch as it is after a couple of years when users bases for the systems has been established.
Now indeed lots of people are wondering about which system to get, I do agree with the ones that state that the differences are not that obvious, in the heat of action you may very well not notice, and it doesn't affect the experience in any significant way, though as a potential buyer you got to estimate the worth of a system, its potential, etc. To make decisions you need hard data, perceptions are subjective and do not help one to make a decision.
The whole point imho is the one RenegadeRocks raised, it is a new generation, both Sony and MSFT made it so that their users are not bound to their environment as there is no BC (~). Recreating a friend list is not such a herculean task.
Arguments such as "buy the system your friends get" is not as relevant at launch as it is after a couple of years when users bases for the systems has been established.
Now indeed lots of people are wondering about which system to get, I do agree with the ones that state that the differences are not that obvious, in the heat of action you may very well not notice, and it doesn't affect the experience in any significant way, though as a potential buyer you got to estimate the worth of a system, its potential, etc. To make decisions you need hard data, perceptions are subjective and do not help one to make a decision.
Last edited by a moderator:
